D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Ovinomancer]

[emphasis mine]
This is the part where others don't agree with you. Your logic is sound. Your base postulate isn't, and therefore skews your conclusion.

Is that not a definition for lost? I'm not sure how you're saying that's not a legitimate definition for lost.

 

[Mort]

Is that not a definition for lost? I'm not sure how you're saying that's not a legitimate definition for lost.

If something has more than one possible definition and one of those definitions leads to an unwanted/ absurd result - maybe don't go with that particular definition?

Plenty of words have differently applicable definitions under different contexts.

 

[Rabulias]

We have literally had this conversation before. Like the DM trying to prevent us from using Misty Step through a Wall of Force. He didn't like that a 2nd level spell beat a 5th level spell, but the rules don't say that a Wall of Force stops teleportation. And since you can see through it...

It may not hold much water, but in 3rd edition wall of force specifically said it did not block teleportation effects, so there is earlier edition precedent to show your DM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If something has more than one possible definition and one of those definitions leads to an unwanted/ absurd result - maybe don't go with that particular definition?

Plenty of words have differently applicable definitions under different contexts.

This appears to be the handwave argument I was talking about. That definition of lost isn't esoteric or odd -- it's a 1st or 2nd listing in a number of dictionaries. This is a point, though -- I don't disagree that it's an unwanted or absurd result. I'm highlighting it because it is such, and because you cannot discount it without just choosing to handwave it away. It's part and parcel of the way that 5e works against exploration by creating abilities with this kind of need to censor meaning to even work partially sensibly.

 

[Hussar]

I get that. So, if you don't know the way, that's one definition for lost. You can't be lost. How does this resolve without handwaving it away because it's icky?

This is a semantic rabbit hole that really isn't all that important.

To me, yeah, that's an over reach. "Not knowing the route to a location that I do not know exists" is not a real definition of "lost" or at least, it's a pretty thinly stretched one. So, the party is going to Area X to search for the Lost Temple. Ok, fair enough. They get to Area X without getting lost, but, yeah, they still have to search the area for the Lost Temple. Now, since the range can never get lost, it does make searching a LOT easier. Basically, you just grid your way through Area X and find the Lost Temple. I would argue that "never getting lost" means that if I can define a start and end point, so long as it is actually physically possible to go from A to B, then I go from A to B without getting lost.

So, I'm quartering that Area X into hundred yard lines, moving 1 mile (or whatever distance) North, moving over 100 yards, then moving 1 mile south.

Or, better yet, we send up someone's familiar, do an aerial scout and find the Lost Temple in 15 minutes, all without having to slog our way through the bloody jungle. Oh, but right, that familiar will instantly be attacked, so, I guess we have to brute force this. I know, we'll use that Speak with Animals ritual. Oh right, all the animals will never be able to know what that giant stone temple in the middle of the jungle is. I can't ever get useful information for animals. And Speak with Plants? Naw, they don't know anything. So on and so forth. Nope, the ONLY thing we can ever do is mundanely move through the jungle so that we don't avoid any of our DM's precious adventure. That would be breaking the social contract.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Have anyone here watched The Amazing Race? That might be a good source of inspiration??

 

[Azzy]

This appears to be the handwave argument I was talking about. That definition of lost isn't esoteric or odd -- it's a 1st or 2nd listing in a number of dictionaries. This is a point, though -- I don't disagree that it's an unwanted or absurd result. I'm highlighting it because it is such, and because you cannot discount it without just choosing to handwave it away. It's part and parcel of the way that 5e works against exploration by creating abilities with this kind of need to censor meaning to even work partially sensibly.

This fails the "reasonable person" test. In the context of the rules as written, no reasonable person would intrepret getting lost as you've presented or use such a tortured argument to argue that a ranger should be able to find an unknown location without actually searching.

 

[Aldarc]

This fails the "reasonable person" test. In the context of the rules as written, no reasonable person would intrepret getting lost as you've presented or use such a tortured argument to argue that a ranger should be able to find an unknown location without actually searching.

Insinuiating that Ovinomancer isn't a reasonable person seems kind of insulting and not cool at all, Azzy.

 

[TheSword]

The ‘unable to find ones way’ is predicated on having an intended way to go to their destination in the first place. @Ovinomancer is ignoring that. Normally when people set out on a journey - hike/drive etc - they know which way they intend to go and they know their destination. Even if it’s to explore what on the other side of that mountain.

A ranger always knows there they are and won’t accidentally take a wrong turn. It doesn’t mean the pass of Caradhras won’t be blocked, forcing him to take another way and it doesn’t give supernatural directions to locations he hadn’t already planned a route to.

 

[TheSword]

Insinuiating that Ovinomancer isn't a reasonable person seems kind of insulting and not cool at all, Azzy.

It’s possible to get committed to your argument even when everyone else is telling you it doesn’t make sense. It’s the reason the police force shouldn’t be able to impose verdicts on criminals they investigate. They get caught up in their own position and lose perspective, 12 average people make the decision instead - reasonable people.

I don’t think anyone is attacking Ovinomancer personally, just saying in this they have lost perspective with what is reasonable.

Of course they can run ranger however they want. Lots of people are just saying that’s a twisted way to look at it!